NAVEEN SHARAN NISCHAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed assailing the order dated 03.10.2006 passed by Additional Director, Education, Garhwal whereby respondent no. 4 was declared senior to the petitioner. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) purely on ad hoc basis in RNI Inter College, Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar vide order dated 13.11.1989; petitioner gave his joining on 15.11.1989; respondent no. 4 was appointed as Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) purely on ad hoc basis vide order dated 05.02.1990; in the year 1995, names of the petitioner and respondent no. 4 along with Mr. Braham Pal Singh, Mr. Amrish Kumar Rastogi, Mr. Ashok Kumar Saini, Mr. Jyoti Prasad Kala and Mr. Rajesh Kumar were sent for substantive appointment / regularization, as per Section 33 B of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982; vide order dated 24.04.1995, petitioner and respondent no. 4 were given substantive appointment or in other words, their services were regularized; petitioner was shown as senior to respondent no. 4 in the seniority list; however, all of a sudden, respondent no. 4 made representation in the year 2006 to the effect that he was senior to the petitioner, therefore, his name should be placed above the petitioner in the seniority list; thereafter, respondent no. 4 filed WPSS No. 1061 of 2006 (Sudesh Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others) before this Court; WPSS No. 1061 of 2006 was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 03.08.2006 directing the Joint Director, Intermediate Education, Garhwal Division, Pauri to take decision on the representation of respondent no. 4 claiming seniority over the petitioner in accordance with law; in compliance of the order passed by this Court, petitioner and respondent no. 4 were heard and thereafter, impugned order dated 03.10.2006 was passed declaring respondent no. 4 senior to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed present writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Mr. C. K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand, Mr. V.S. Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Mr. A.V. Pundir, Advocate for respondent no. 4 and have carefully perused the record.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) on ad hoc basis vide appointment letter dated 13.11.1989 while respondent no. 4 was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) on ad hoc basis vide appointment letter dated 05.02.1990. Section 33B of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982 reads as under: